i know right. JD has the energy.

I was going to say nice before here with acknowledge that there was something of something of evidently value

Right.

Yeah. I 100% agree she should have recused herself. But, I do know that generally speaking judges are granted a great deal of leeway on issues of recusal. But to me as high profile as all this stuff is and Stacey being so very very involved in voter registration is seems just stupid for her not to recuse herself.

Stacy Abrams wasn't even involved in this election as a candidate.

@Zuluzeit
@Doc
Mccarthy was right Bruh. </s>

REDS in AMERICA
https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-19551336/documents/5b947ac980620dYOjQgo/Reds_In_America-Whitney-1924-288pgs-POL.sml.pdf


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
👆
A lot of these people received early relsase and are actively participating in BLM, Antifa, and sunrise activist groups.

wow those are some serious blinders you have on there

How

she was bragging about how many new voters she was recruiting

Yeah, I know... but it just the appearance that is ugly. Stacey Abrams has been very very involved in getting voters registered in GA over the last 4 years.

So to me ... why have those very ugly optics? It just looks bad.

I'm not disagreeing @JD~Jordan

As well she should...

and then her sister rules to leave 4000 on that moved out of the area

I'm just saying

https://www.wunderground.com/

She should have@JD~Jordan

Not the forcast. Sorry helping grandparents work their TV.... kill me

If you can't see the conflict of interest in the judge sister of a woman actively recruiting voters allowing over 4000 ineligible voters to vote anyway I'm not even sure what to say to you anymore

First off... you are assuming facts not in evidence. One side claims that those people moved.

And it is very sketchy that they are removing that many people from just a few counties just before a Runoff that decides the Senate and less than a month after a Presidential Election.

So the optics of the removal of those 4,000 is bad too.... At least as to the timing.

I personally don't see how Biden one either...@Azizah ... But I do Wonder why we only keep getting crooked bastards...m

she never said they didn't move....she said they couldn't do a systematic purge within 90 days of an election.....again using a technicality to allow over 4000 votes from people that moved.

If you think Trump is not part of machine you're believing yourself@Azizah

I agreed with you that she should have recused herself. Do I think that it was a legal requirement that she recuse herself? No, probably not. Judges have a great deal of latitude on issues like that and its not the worst nonrecusal I have ever seen... but she still should have resuced herself

so for future elections it comes down to who casts the ballots for those 4000 people first? my point exactly....encouraging cheating

how much do you want to bet those 4000 people are still on the voter logs in 2 years?

who cheated?

It’s like an Xbox live lobby in here!

@rip.lul so bad bro

If you have been reading anything I have stated....my concern is all of the doors left open for cheating

https://tenor.com/view/stop-theyre-already-dead-dead-stephen-vlog-stephen-georg-gif-16938485

and the refusal to close them

One more time.... you are assuming those 4,000 people did actually move out of State. One side says they did and one side says maybe not.

So, allowing them to vote on provisional ballots (if they show up to vote) IS the right thing to do.

The SCOTUS has long since ruled that courts should always err on the side of allowing votes instead of suppressing them.

So... I absolutely agree that the judge ruled correctly. I just think she should have allowed another judge hear the case given the nature of it.

ther are checks and balances in place. whose refusing? the only one who has blocked electoral reform is Mitch McConnel. and i won't lie, i haven't read all that you have posted.

@rip.lul you just gotta block them.

@mg216, you just advanced to level 5!

Also... @Azizah there is tons of case law suggesting that voter roll purges should never take place on the eve of an election (and by eve I dont mean the night before but a few months before)

some states have people that have been dead over 20 years on the voter logs but according to your previous statements each state can do what they choose......legally you are correct but should we really allow states to be negligent in updating voter logs?

and then use that negligence to possibly impact an election and they throw up their hands and say oooops

somebody please kill me.

https://tenor.com/view/stickergiant-triggered-trigger-triggering-im-triggered-gif-15023876

LOL... ok wow... why are you even arguing this? FEDERAL law prohibits the cleaning of voter rolls 90 days before any federal election.

The judge didn't matter... its a fucking violation of federal law


https://www.justice.gov/crt/national-voter-registration-act-1993-nvra